Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that the tool is asynchronous (returns job_id immediately), that the transcript is fetched via get_transcript, and that billing debits minutes based on recording duration. It does not mention failure modes or auth requirements, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the core function and output, the diarize option, supported platforms, and the async/billing behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical operational details: what it accepts, what it returns, how to retrieve the result, speaker separation behavior, supported sources, and cost implications. An agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly and know what to expect next.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by enumerating supported URL sources (YouTube, VK, Rutube, etc.) and by explaining the practical effect of diarize=true for speaker separation. This is genuinely helpful for correctly choosing parameter values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action—converting audio/video from a URL into text with timestamps—and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling transcribe_file by emphasizing 'по ссылке' (by link). The name and title reinforce the resource type, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: it explains when to set diarize=true, lists supported platforms as public recordings, and routes the user to get_transcript for retrieving the result. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus transcribe_file, but the 'по ссылке' framing and platform list imply the distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.